Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?

Map of Ukraine

Why are Republican leaders so fascinated by Russian President Vladimir Putin? In this post, I look at Republicans’ own words from their own speeches. What have they said about Putin – openly, and publicly – and, as I said, in their own speeches? (I am not looking at what the mainstream media says about the Republicans, nor am I reading between the lines. I’m looking at their exact words.) And what we find is that certain powerful Republicans have long praised Putin in odd and yet compelling ways. They do not talk about Putin’s moral goodness – how could they? Instead, they praise him as strong and clever. Maybe they mean “crafty” rather than clever. That, in turn, tells us something about the difference between conservatives and liberals. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal rhetoric tends to work with what he calls “nurturing mother” metaphors, while conservative rhetoric more often speaks in what he calls “strong father” metaphors. I’m sure that sounds sexist. All the same, Lakoff shows us that conservatives seek forceful leadership, while liberals prefer leaders who will care about them and try to do the right thing. Are conservatives wise to think that strong leaders will protect them? Well, no, and I will write about that at the end.

So, to be clear, Republicans never say that Putin is either a good man or wise leader. They often, however, admire his strength. Since conservatives feel safer if a strong man (rarely, if ever, do they mention a strong woman) protects them, they come to admire Putin. Unfortunately, Putin’s cruel invasion of Ukraine gave Republicans a moral dilemma of their own making. 


Putin Invaded Ukraine

On February 21, 2022, Putin ordered Russian troops to attack Ukraine, supposedly focusing on two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine. Russian troops attacked regions of eastern Ukraine on February 24, and soon assaulted the entire country.

This posed a political problem for Republican leaders, several of whom have long given Putin their close but uneasy admiration. In any case, as the war in Ukraine becomes increasingly brutal, many Republicans are backpedaling about Putin. Well, good for them, and better late than never.


Trump Admired Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine

Putin recognized the independence of Ukraine’s breakaway provinces on February 21, 2022. Former President Donald Trump promptly showed up on the right-wing Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. Trump said that Putin’s decision to annex parts of eastern Ukraine was “genius.” Commenting about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump said: 

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion ... of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent.”

Lest anyone think that Trump just tripped over his tongue, he also said:

“So, Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s [the] strongest peace force.”

Trump continued that United States President Joe Biden should show the same kind of strength on the United States border with Mexico. Trump said about Putin:

“Here’s a guy who is very savvy. We could use that on our southern border.”

Strong, savvy, and a genius. That’s what Trump said about Putin. 

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 26, 2022, just five days later, Trump harshly criticized the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That was to be expected, since the invasion had become so brutal that for Trump to continue to support it would seem irrational. Consistency has never been his strong point. Trump nevertheless reiterated that Putin was “smart.” Trump continued to compare Putin’s supposed great talent against the supposed weakness of American leaders:

“The real problem is that our leaders are dumb. . . . [Putin] is playing Biden like a drum, and it’s not a pretty thing to watch.”

Trump’s Past Rhetoric about Putin

Trump’s effusive praise should surprise no one. As far back as 2015, Trump told broadcaster Bill O’Reilly that Putin was an exceptional leader:

“I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, he is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump also said:

“We’re going to have a great relationship with Putin and Russia.”

Speaking at a campaign rally a few weeks later, Trump praised Putin as a “strong leader,” contrasting him against President Barack Obama. He also encouraged closer friendship with Putin’s Russia:

“I respect Putin. He is a strong leader, unlike what we have. We have a pathetic leader, pathetic. You don’t have a leader. The word ‘leader,’ you put leader in quotes. We don’t even have a leader. Wouldn’t it be nice to get along with Russia? Wouldn’t that be nice?”

Notice, of course, that Trump emphasized strength. He did not call Putin wise or good. He called him “strong.” The theme continues!

During another 2016 campaign rally, Trump was only slightly less gushing. He repeated that the United States should get along with Russia:

“Putin said Donald Trump is a genius and next great leader of the United States. They wanted me to disavow what he said. How do you call me a genius? How dare you call me a genius, Vladimir? Wouldn’t it be nice if we would get along with Russia?”

Trump was, however, back at full throttle during an Ohio campaign rally when he attacked Hillary Clinton for, of all things, being too tough on Putin:

“She speaks very badly of Putin, and I don’t think that’s smart.”

Trump continued:

“How do you speak so badly of someone?”

Going even farther, Trump continued to praise Putin in a September 2016 Town Hall:

“Well, he does have an 82 percent approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who, by the way, some of them are based right here. Look, look...”

Pressed by the moderator, Trump became even more effusive:

“If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him. I’ve already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, oh, isn’t that a terrible thing -- the man has very strong control over a country.

“Now, it’s a very different system, and I don’t happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.”

Again, Trump emphasized Putin’s strength – his power as a leader, his “very strong control over a country.” While disagreeing with Putin’s system of government, Trump admired Putin’s strength.

Okay, that’s enough about Trump. What have other American conservatives said about Putin?


Other Republican Leaders Praised Putin

Former Vice President Mike Pence has said various odd things about Putin. Like Trump, Pence contrasts Putin, as a supposedly strong leader, against Democrats, who he considers to be weak. During the 2016 campaign, Pence offered this remarkable comment about Putin:

“He’s been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.”

Isn’t Pence’s phrasing interesting? Pence neither praised nor criticized Putin’s political ideas or accomplishments. Instead, he focused on strength, as if strength should be a leader’s main, or only, quality.

Prominent Republicans continued to praise Putin as late as January and February 2022, with dark clouds of impending war already hanging over Ukraine. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extolled Putin, while expressing hope that President Biden could be equally strong:

“He is a very talented statesman. He has lots of gifts. He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that.”

“Power,” Pompeo said. “He knows how to use power.” It was Putin’s strength, not his wisdom, that Pompeo admired. Stunningly, the once-great National Review published an article trying to spin Pompeo’s comments as a warning, not as the fawning praise that they were. 

Most astonishing of all, Fox News host Tucker Carlson delivered a television monologue on the eve of the Russian invasion, savagely attacking Putin’s critics. Carlson compared Putin’s implied goodness against evil things that Carlson thinks liberals have been doing. He even implied that American public health restrictions were worse than what Putin was doing:

“What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?”

Carlson’s rant implied value judgments. In Carlson’s moral universe, pandemic restrictions sounded worse than a threatened invasion. In a loud, angry voice, Carlson continued:

“These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is no. Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that. So why does permanent Washington hate him so much?”

Carlson sneered that the impending Russian invasion was merely a “border dispute.” Predictably, Russian television made a big deal of Carlson’s pro-Putin comments. Of course, as Russia’s invasion became increasingly brutal, Carlson soon flip-flopped as if he had never made the above comments. Instead, only a few days later, he viciously criticized Putin:

“Vladimir Putin started this war. So, whatever the context of the decision that he made, he did it. He fired the first shots. He is to blame for what we are seeing tonight in Ukraine.”

Conservatives are nothing if not flexible.


It’s Not All Bleak

Republicans have not universally praised Putin. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, recently criticized Putin in harsh terms. More pointedly, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that those of his fellow Republicans who supported Putin were nearly traitors. He condemned his fellow Republicans for shillyshallying in their attitudes toward Putin. Romney continued that some of his fellow Republicans were “almost treasonous:”

“Well, a lot of those people are changing their stripes as they’re seeing the response of the world and the political response here in the U.S. But how anybody in this country which loves freedom can side with Vladimir Putin — who is an oppressor, a dictator, he kills people. He imprisons his political opponents. He’s been an adversary of America at every chance he’s had. It’s unthinkable to me. It’s almost treasonous, and it just makes me ill to see some of these people do that. But of course, they do it because it’s shock value, and it will get them more eyeballs and make a little more money for them and their network. It’s disgusting. I’m hopeful you’re seeing some of those people recognize just how wrong they were.”

So, Romney gave the Republican Party a brief taste of patriotism.

What is strange about this is that Republican voters are not particularly pro-Putin. In a recent YouGov opinion poll, 88% of Biden voters had an unfavorable view of Putin, while 76% of Trump voters shared that unfavorable view. Only 5% of Biden voters had a favorable view of Putin, while 9% of Trump voters also had a favorable view of him. So, although Trump voters are slightly more favorable toward Putin than Biden voters, opposition to Putin was high in both groups. Whatever is going on with Republican politicians, they are not pandering to their base voters.


The Politics of Strength

How can we summarize this? First, I took all of this from Republican leaders’ own speeches and other spoken statements. I gave you their own words. Second, from former President Trump on down, many, although not all, prominent Republicans have frequently praised Vladimir Putin. They often compare Putin favorably against Democratic leaders. This praise arises from their perception that Putin is smart, manipulative, and, most of all, strong. Republican politicians are reluctant to endorse Putin’s policies, which they seem to separate from their admiration for him as an individual. Which matters to them more? Putin’s strength, which they admire, or his brutal policies, which they occasionally condemn? I’m not sure that they know the answer themselves.

What Republican leaders often show, however, is a yearning for a strong leader. If we think of a strong leader as decisive and wise, that’s one thing. When we think that strong leadership means to smash people under a tank’s treads, that’s something else. When people perceive danger – and conservatives perceive danger around every corner – they sometimes seek a strong person to defend them.

Do strong leaders keep us safe? If you want to know the answer, you might want to ask the ghosts of the 3.5 million people who died in Stalin’s pogroms, the 11 million murdered in Hitler’s concentration camps, or the untold millions who perished in Pol Pot’s Cambodia purges. You might ask Talat Paşa’s Armenian genocide victims. You might ask the victims of the massacres in Rwanda. Strong leaders typically wreak havoc. 

That’s not the exception. That is the norm. If you want to pretend to feel safe from enemies, real or imaginary, vote for tyrants. If you want to stay safe in real life, avoid leaders who boast of their strength as if they carry the plague. Let’s go back to the strong father metaphor. You might want a strong father, but you don’t need a cruel, tyrannical father. That isn’t true strength. A true father is loving, nurturing, and reliable. Not violent, unpredictable, and vicious.

And, no, I don’t think I misunderstand what Republicans mean when they talk about “strong leaders.” They have been quite emphatic. What they don’t understand is this: a true leader inspires people to be better than they already are. A true leader inspires a nation to go forward, not back into the past. Remember that.

And I convey my hope that the people of Ukraine, my maternal grandparents’ homeland, will soon enjoy peace and justice.

_______________

European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Why Didn’t Vladimir Putin Deny That He Had Compromising Information about President Trump?

_______________

Image: US Dept. of State

"It's All about Control:" Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion

Coronavirus, CDC Image

Right-wing firebrand Ryan Fournier recently complained on his Twitter account that the government uses the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to control people. He gave no support to public health. Instead, he invited his followers to fear the power that big government was exerting on their lives: 

“Los Angeles will soon require a VACCINE PASSPORT if you want to enter a:
Bar
Restaurant
Nail salon
Gym
Stadium
Mall
Museum
This is no longer about the pandemic. It's about control!”

Anyone who follows conservative anti-vaccine and anti-mask rhetoric hears the same phrase, over and over: “It’s about control.” It’s not about public health, they imply, it’s about control. Do they have a good argument to prove that? Of course not. Instead, they mindlessly repeat “It’s about control” over – and over – and over.

Indeed, what conservative listeners hear all day from their favorite media and elected officials is: “It’s about control.” “It’s about control.” “It’s about control.” The same phrase, pounded into their brains with the force of jackhammers.

Let’s start with two premises:

1. The coronavirus vaccines and face masks have been proven to be quite safe and effective.
2. For some reason, American conservatives have taken the virus’ side in this pandemic.

Since the substantive arguments against the vaccines and masks are absurd, American conservatives rely, instead, on two simple persuasive techniques: repetition and misdirection. The same methods that stage magicians use to fool their audiences. 

________________________

What are some of the absurd arguments against public health? Prominent conservatives have claimed that the vaccines magnetize a person’s body to the extent that brass keys (which, of course, are not magnetic) will stick to a person’s body. They allege that tiny octopus-like creatures are injected along with the vaccines. (No, I didn’t make that up). Or that the vaccines contain microchips. Or that they alter a person’s DNA. Or that face masks like the ones surgeons wear all day trap carbon dioxide. Only the most deluded people will believe such nonsense. Although there turn out to be more deluded people than I would have expected, conservatives need to reach a larger audience. Conservatives turn to repetition and misdirection because their substantive arguments are ridiculous. They have no other choice.

________________________

Repetition

The point is that, whatever conservatives lack in content, they make up in repetition. In a massive six-month study, Media Matters found that Fox News hosts, guests, and announcers attacked coronavirus vaccines almost every day. Fox News offered a wide range of bizarre accusations, one of which is the argument that vaccines are about government control, not about health. Fox News also routinely falsely claimed that vaccines were killing people, that they were ineffective, or that the coronavirus can be cured by quack medicine treatments.

Here was my moment of epiphany. The other day, wanting to stay alert while driving, I turned on a local talk radio station. Hour after hour (it dawned on me) talk radio hosts rant about the vaccines and masks, say that the masks and vaccines are all about control, and tell people that they are dangerous. Then, of course, public health misinformation is also all over Facebook and any number of right-wing websites. Rarely do conservatives present any evidence. Even less often do they present evidence that is remotely credible. That’s not the point. The point is that they repeat wild accusations constantly. Fox News and talk radio addicts expose themselves to a constant run, an endless, frantic flood, of misinformation. Absurd lies. Obvious nonsense. And why do they believe the nonsense? The answer: repetition. It’s not that the information is good, or even that it makes sense, but that many conservatives hear the misinformation all day and all night. Televisions in military bases and airports blare Fox News constantly to captive audiences. Many people subscribe to cable just so they can be misinformed.

Worse, the exact phrase – “It’s about control” – crops up over and over. Listeners’ minds are programmed to believe that “It’s all about control.” It’s not just that the false idea is repeated, but that the exact words are repeated in a direct, simple, easy-to-remember formula. Let’s take a look.


“It’s About Control”
There are many examples of the standard formula. Pedro Gonzalez, appearing as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, complained about military coronavirus vaccination mandates:

“The answer to your question is that this isn’t about public safety, it’s about control.”

Likewise, Tennessee congressional representative Diana Harshbarger proudly posted on her website that she opposed President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates:

“‘The recent vaccine mandates by President Biden are nothing short of authoritarian government overreach that infringe upon our American civil liberties,’ said Congresswoman Harshbarger. ‘The Biden administration has revealed that this isn’t about COVID-19, it’s about control.’” Americans have rightfully lost their trust in President Biden to provide accurate guidance when it comes to COVID-19 as he continues to put politics over science.’”

Agreeing that it is all about control, actor Kevin Sorbo, who played Hercules on television, posted on his social media that:

“It’s not about a mask, it’s about CONTROL.” 

Similarly, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted that:

“But gov’t shouldn’t mandate those masks or masks for kids. It’s about control and I’m fighting back.”

Also concerned about government control, preacher Dr. Jimmy DeYoung, Sr. asked a guest on his talk radio show:

“Could this vaccine be another form of government control of the people?”

Not long after, Dr. DeYoung became one of several unvaccinated right-wing, anti-public health radio hosts to die from a coronavirus infection. It seems that it is dangerous to believe your own propaganda. Who would have guessed? 

_____________________

Further Reading: Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Fantasy of Perfect Vaccines

Elaine's Post: We Must Have Mask and Vaccine Mandates to Protect Children

Elaine's Post: Why Do People Fear the COVID-19 Vaccine More Than They Fear COVID-19? The Perception of Control  - Elaine discuses the psychology of vaccine hesitancy.
_____________________

And the Repetition Filters on Down –
Does this constant repetition about “control” have an effect? Alas, it does. Perfectly ordinary people find themselves echoing the same phrase: that public health measures are all about control. They even repeat the exact words – “It’s about control” – over and over, like tape recorders, like automata who are programmed to repeat a favorite phrase while never thinking about what it means. 

For example, refusing to take a mandated vaccine, substitute teacher April Johnson wrote to a local newspaper:

“But it’s not really about science or being ‘safe.’ It’s about control. Our state government doesn’t think we, the people who elected them, are capable of making our own choices. They are using fear tactics to steal away personal liberty, bit by bit. But I won’t comply. I won’t play the game.”

Aha! She repeated the magic phase, “It’s  about control.” Of course, any number of demonstrators are waving signs like the one in a recent Boulder protest, which said: 

“It’s not about the virus. It’s about control.”

Similarly, Shannon Long, a speaker at a recent Maryland school board meeting, complained that it was all about control. According to the news report:

“Ms. Long complained about ‘politicians and their bull-- — science. This is not about health. It’s about control.’”

Not to be outdone, a speaker at a North Carolina school board meeting was even more defiant as she protested government control:
 

“‘The reason for these mask mandates is not the health of our kids. It’s all about control,’ one woman said. ‘We do not consent. We do not comply.’”

“It’s about control” has, by sheer force of repetition, programmed itself into ordinary people’s brains. People who would otherwise have lived perfectly normal, good lives immerse themselves in conservative discourse and, by sheer force of hearing the repetition, begin to parrot right-wing phrases. I can’t say that they are parroting ideas. They aren’t. They are parroting words that have pounded into their minds. 

In other words, conservatives use the jackhammer approach to persuasion.


And Misdirection!
A rational, issue-based discussion of vaccines and masks would focus on the actual issues. Does the FDA have good evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective? Are there documented harms from the vaccines, or do masks really trap your carbon dioxide? Discussing substantive evidence will get conservatives only so far, since they don’t really have much evidence. Talking about microscopic octopi and DNA modification only gets you so far. But as soon as conservatives say, “It’s about control,” we are no longer debating the same issues. We are, instead, questioning whether we want to let the government tell us what to do. Do we want the government to tell us how to raise our children? Do we want the government to make health decisions on our behalf?

There is, of course, nothing new or tyrannical about public health. I grew up in the era of polio quarantines. The Founders of our Republic imposed quarantines and other public health measures when they thought they were necessary.

Of course, unfortunately, on the whole, the conservative public knows no more about history than they do about science. And so, the pandemic rages on – needlessly, and tragically.

For, in real life, it is not about control.

_____________________

Further Reading: People Did Not Believe Cassandra’s Warnings About the Trojan Horse, And People Didn’t Believe Bill Gates’ Warning about Viral Pandemics

Elaine’s Post: COVID-19 Misinformation and Lies Are Killing Young People

Further Reading: Trump and the Maskless Crowd: Masks Are a Flag Issue for Conservative Voters
__________________

Research Note: A theory of persuasion called the Elaboration Likelihood Model says that there two different ways that audiences can process information. They can take the Central Route, which means they gather information and analyze the issue. Or they can take the Peripheral Route, in which they rely on otherwise irrelevant cues like the attractiveness of the source, or the simple repetition of the message.

People who feel qualified and willing to analyze information carefully will engage in critical thinking when they hear persuasive messages. People who, for whatever reason, are not analyzing the information will instead rely on cues. The simple fact that so many people have heard “It’s all about control” so many times gives them a peripheral cue. Repetition can persuade people–if they don’t spend time and effort to analyze the facts.


Citizenship Note: Yes, the conservative media outlets are utterly irresponsible. The rest of the public does, however, need to listen to what they are saying. There is, for example, no reason that the anti-public-health hysteria should have caught public health experts off guard. Right-wing propaganda goes under the radar only if people refuse to turn on their metaphorical radar sets and pay attention to what conservatives are saying. Yes, conservatives often live in a media bubble. When they emerge from that bubble, however, they can sometimes become quite dangerous. Pay attention.

[Note: In this post, I supplied italics every time someone said, “it’s about control.” The words are the same; I just added italics.] 

P.S. I love Kevin Sorbo's shows. Especially Andromeda. Just saying. 

Can Proof Ever Be Absolute? Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Fantasy of Perfect Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC Image

What I hear almost constantly from conservatives’ anti-vaccine rhetoric is a demand for certainty. Absolutism. The coronavirus vaccines must be proven, they say absolutely for certain, to prevent all infections. The side effects must be zero. The risk must be nil. The proof must be complete. The vaccines must be flawless. They either work, or they don’t work – nothing in between, so the anti-vaxxers tell us.

And the king of the anti-vaxxers is Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

But Carlson and his ilk promote a fantasy. Perfection is a fantasy. Human beings don’t have access to perfection. No physician can offer perfect medications. No one has a perfect brain. No scientific study is perfect. We live in a world of probabilities. If we are wise, we judge our actions by what the majority of the best evidence tells us. We can expect nothing better. Yet, the conservative anti-vaccine rhetoric often insists on perfection. Their argument seems to be that the vaccines must work 100%, or 0%. It appears that nothing in-between makes sense to them. Yet we live in a world of in-betweens.

____________________

Read: Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

____________________

 

Tucker Carlson Asks for Perfection

So, let’s look a passage from Tucker Carlson’s July 30, 2021 monologue:

“Now — surprise, surprise — they’re demanding that even after you got the shot, you wear a mask again, even when you’re outside.

“What’s going on here? Why are they doing this? There must be some reason for it. We’ve been wondering about it all week. Yesterday we asked the CDC to explain the reasoning behind it. They couldn’t tell us. Today they did. What an explanation. It turns out that the COVID vaccines – those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect, more impressive than the moon landing, the drugs you were not allowed to question in any way – don’t actually work in the way they told us they did. The science is more complicated than we thought.”

Let’s pull out Carlson’s key phrase, which he uttered, his lips dripping with sarcasm: “those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect.”

But No One Said Vaccines Were Perfect  

First, public health officials aren't saying that the vaccines were “absolutely perfect.” In April 2021, for example, Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “No matter what study you look at, the protection against severe disease leading to hospitalization is always well within the 90%, regardless of the study, regardless of the country.” He did not say absolutely perfect. He did not say 100% effective. He said 90%: nine times out of ten.

Further, in April 2021 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a major controlled study. The study found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective, but not 100% effective:

“Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks. Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (³14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (³14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.”

The researchers stated the information quite clearly. The vaccines were 90% effective against infections two weeks after the second dose. That’s remarkable, but it is not 100%. It is not perfection.

Despite the admitted lack of perfection, the study concluded:

“Authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.”

Similarly, an August 2021 research report found that the vaccines were highly but not completely effective:

“Among adults aged 65–74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94%–98%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI = 95%–98%) for Moderna, and 84% (95% CI = 64%–93%) for Janssen vaccine products.”

In other words, for older adults (like me), full vaccination prevented hospitalization with an effectiveness between 84% and 96%. That’s really good. It’s not perfect.

In September 2021 – this month – the CDC released a new study conducted among veterans hospitalized in Veterans Affairs medical centers. This is obviously a high-risk population. The results were somewhat less impressive than the April study, which was to be expected. The researchers nevertheless found that the vaccines were highly, but not perfectly, effective:

“During February 1–August 6, 2021, vaccine effectiveness among U.S. veterans hospitalized at five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers was 87%. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remain highly effective, including during periods of widespread circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19–related hospitalization was 80% among adults aged ³65 years compared with 95% among adults aged 18–64 years.”

So, the researchers found that the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations was 80% among older adults and 95% among younger adults. That’s good, of course, but still not perfect.

But Wasn't the Smallpox Vaccine Perfect? (Uh, No, It Wasn't.)

But is Tucker Carlson moderating his views in the light of repeated scientific studies? So far, no. In his September 13, 2021 monologue, Carlson carried the demand for vaccine perfection even farther:

“Unlike say the smallpox vaccine, which prevents you from getting smallpox, the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID. The COVID vaccine does not prevent you from spreading COVID to other people. The long-term effects of the COVID vaccines are unknown, and at this point cannot be known.”

As usual, Carlson talked about perfection: “the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID” he said.  Yes, once again, Carlson suffered from the fantasy of perfection. Nor were smallpox vaccines 100% effective. A 2003 scientific article found that the smallpox vaccines were 90%+ effective in producing an immune response. That is not 100%. By pretending that the old vaccines were perfect, Carlson falsely implied that the new vaccines are substandard. Necessarily? No, of course not. Probably? Yes. Perfection is a fantasy.

Probability Is Our Only Real Goal

Every argumentation and debate textbook warns students not to expect perfection. In the realm of human affairs, what we work for is probability, supported by evidence. If we wait for something to be proved for certain, well, we will wait forever. In their textbook, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision-Making, Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg explained that point precisely:

“Probability is associated with a high degree of likelihood (but not certainty) that a conclusion is true. As advocates we will spend much of our time trying to prove that our propositions have a high degree of probability and are more probably true than those of our opponents. For example, no method of contraception is 100 percent effective; even sterilization fails at times, and other methods range from 76 percent to 97.6 percent in their effectiveness. Thus, in choosing contraceptives, people are basing their decisions on probabilities.”

So, let us get back to Tucker Carlson’s July 30 conclusion: “The science is more complicated than we thought.” Is that not the point? Strangely enough, Carlson even admitted the problem of perfection at another point in his July 30 monologue:

“Surprised? You shouldn’t be surprised. Science is like that. It can change quickly. It is never really settled, despite what they tell you.”

Unfortunately, Carlson did not offer that cautionary comment to reassure his listeners that the bulk of scientific evidence was accurate. No, instead, he cast doubt on believing in any scientific information – since scientific information can change, should we believe it at all? “Despite what they tell you?” What a strange twist on the problem of perfection and certainty.

Conclusion: Judge by Probability and Evidence

Perhaps the anti-vaccine people insist that they will only change their minds if they hear 100% proof that they are wrong. Perhaps they think that is better to be wrong than to change. To insist on perfect proof, however, is to insist on something that can never be.

The scientific researchers and public health officials who Tucker Carlson misrepresented and ridiculed said exactly what they should have said. They said that the vaccines are effective with a stated degree of probability. Yes, it is possible to be vaccinated and still get sick. However, the evidence shows that the probability of being healthy is much greater if one is vaccinated than if one is not vaccinated. To pursue perfection is to chase a fantasy.

____________________

Read: “And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

____________________

P. S.: On a side note, if a person wants to be well-informed about scientific information, especially on a controversial subject, one can look directly at the scientific studies. Many of these are found on Google Scholar at scholar.google.com. On the right-hand column of a Google Scholar search, the reader can find full-text copies of some of the actual articles. Otherwise, your local library probably has access to the research databases. Librarians will be happy to help you find the information you need, and it doesn’t take much more time than browsing around on doubtful websites. If people want to do their own research, looking at Facebook posts and political blogs does not do the job. Listening to uninformed or devious political pundits is no better. The best way to avoid media misinformation is not to become cynical and turn to mindless negativism. No, bypass the media and go to the source! 

Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC image

In a recent commentary, Tucker Carlson said: “To say it in unison – and they’re all saying it – that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is simply untrue, that’s a lie.” Strong words! However, public health authorities’ point is that the vaccines are highly effective. Carlson’s rebuttal was that the vaccines are not completely effective. Carlson’s point is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy. That is, Carlson implied that the vaccine is either effective or it is not – all or nothing. That is a fallacy because no vaccine works all the time.

People commit the false dilemma fallacy when they tell us that we only have two choices when, in fact, we have many. A vaccine might be perfect. A vaccine might be imperfect. Those are not, however, the only two choices. As Kathy Katella of Yale Medicine points out, the current vaccines used in the United States are 86%-98% effective in preventing severe coronavirus infections. Although that is an excellent result, it’s not perfect.  In Texas, for example, 99.5% of coronavirus deaths were among persons who were not vaccinated. Similarly, North Carolina health officials report that 94% of new coronavirus cases are among unvaccinated patients.

Still, if a tiny percentage of the serious illnesses occur among vaccinated people, does that prove that the vaccines do not work? Or does it merely prove that they are slightly imperfect?

To perpetuate his false dilemma fallacy, Carlson first cited British public health authority Sir Patrick Vallance, who said that 40% of British coronavirus hospital patients have been fully vaccinated. Carlson’s conclusion: “it makes you wonder how effective are these drugs anyway.”

Carlson contrasted this figure against what he said were promises made by American officials: “In the U.S., they’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine. The only people getting dangerously sick or dying from COVID are the people who refused to get the vaccine.” In part, of course, Carlson was working with ambiguous or overstated comments by American officials, such as President Joe Biden’s comment that “The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and they’re killing people.” (Biden could, of course, have phrased his point more precisely.)

Did you notice Carlson’s rhetorical trick? “They’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine.” I assume he meant to say “everyone,” not “no one.” In either case, “everyone” and “no one” are absolutes. The false dilemma fallacy requires us to think in absolutes, in all-or-nothing terms. Carlson was leading his audience astray, for public health doesn’t deal in absolutes.

Carlson next slipped in one additional step: he sarcastically said that we are being told that “the only people getting sick are the ones who for political reasons have refused to get the vaccines. How many times have you heard that in the past month? As they continue to politicize medicine – almost at an irrecoverable point.” Again, notice the trick: “the only people.” Not most people, not almost everyone, but the only people. Another absolute.

Carlson's next target was CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who said that “This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We are seeing outbreaks of cases in parts of the country that have low vaccination coverage because unvaccinated people are at risk.” She continued that: “communities that are fully vaccinated are generally faring well.” She then pointed out that people who are unvaccinated were very much at risk.

Walensky worded her statement pretty carefully. Carlson, however, exaggerated her point just a little bit to get to his fallacious conclusion. What Carlson said is this:

“Our CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, has said the same thing. If you’re vaccinated, Rochelle Walensky has assured us, you’re safe. You’re not just protected from infection – you're protected from serious illness or hospitalization, and even the lurking menace known as the Delta variant.”

There, Carlson didn't refute Walensky’s claim that the vaccines are protective – which they obviously are. Instead, he said that public health authorities are falsely telling us that, if you’re vaccinated, “you’re safe.” All or nothing.

So, if a few people get sick after being vaccinated, does that prove that the vaccines don’t work? Of course not. It does, however, let Carlson introduce a seed of doubt.

Now, I will agree that the public health authorities, who seek for us to avoid illness, sometimes overstate their case a little bit. Wise managers know that it’s smart to under-promise and over-deliver. I certainly understand that public health authorities want to encourage us to get vaccinated and to keep ourselves safe. At the same time, no public health authority can phrase a point so carefully that someone as unscrupulous as Tucker Carlson can’t twist and squirm. 

Conspiracy theories work with fallacies by their nature. A fallacy is, by definition, a flawed argument that can be made to seem reasonable. We hear that a few people got sick after taking the vaccine, and assume that the vaccine is useless. That is a fallacy because the majority of people who take the vaccine are highly protected and safe. In our current atmosphere of political mistrust, illogical arguments find fertile ground in the minds of people who are suspicious and uninformed. Knowing this, Tucker Carlson took full advantage to spread his bizarre conspiracy theory.

I think all of us like to think in absolutes. If I never run a red light, I think I will never be hit at an intersection. If I never drink alcohol, I think I’ll never get liver disease. Unfortunately, the real world gives us few absolutes. The real world faces us with gray areas, probabilities, and risk factors. When we start to think in all-or-nothing terms, we oversimplify our problems and make bad decisions. 

• Donald Trump Committed Straw Man Fallacies

• Tucker Carlson Got Tricky with His Evidence About Climate Change

Research Note: The best source about fallacies is still Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric.